[Cathryn Crawford]

I was referencing the specific poster, who was implying that Bush has been manipulated by the neocons all along.

I simply wanted to know what people thought of the situation, and what the solution was. There seems to be three camps:

1) There was no fault by anyone, and this entire charge is ridiculous.

2) This charge is going to be Bush's downfall, and we should prepare for his impeachment.

3) This is a bump, a fairly serious one, but it can be dealt with if the correct people in the CIA are taken to task (in whatever way is found appropriate by Bush and his advisors).

[Amelia]

I was referencing the specific poster, who was implying that Bush has been manipulated by the neocons all along.

And I was simply pointing out that your original article, question, or whatever it is basically implied the same thing.

Please go back and read what you wrote to begin with - it seems to me that you included no possible scenario in which the administration was blameless or that this is a tempest in a teapot stirred up by the media or the Dems.

It seems to me that your original possibilities are that Bush is a dupe, a dunce, or dishonest.

[Dont Mention the War]

2) This charge is going to be Bush's downfall, and we should prepare for his impeachment.

Anyone that believes this one is either a DUer in wolf's clothing or clinically insane. Even assuming the absolute worst - that Bush blatantly, knowingly, willingly LIED when he used the uranium line in the SOtU, with 100% knowledge that the entire charge was 100% false (something we already have proof is simply not the case) - it still wouldn't be ILLEGAL, or even particularly RELEVANT, given that Congress authorized the war months earlier and there were dozens upon dozens of unquestionably legitimate reasons to take out Saddam anyway.

And, I'll add, the GOP controls the House. Anyone here seriously think they're going to vote to impeach the president over this single line in a single speech?

[roughrider]

All right, let's try to make the argument that Mr. Bush's supporters should have made, even though I thought this was the wrong war, in the wrong place, and at the wrong time.

What I find fascinating with this stuff about the STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS is the implied argument being set forth by those scandalizing this one sentence in that speech. This implied argument is as follows:

1. Somehow, erroneous information in a STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS should make us all act like stereotypical ladies gardening clubs when a mouse suddenly makes an appearance. We are all supposed to shriek, hike up our skirts, and jump up on our chairs. These people get "the vapors" over the possibility that Bush put something in the STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS that might have been in error. The implication is that the STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS is NOT ALLOWED to contain any errors, and that it is some kind of "holy writ" that must be 100% pure of any errors. On what basis is that argument made? I think I know, and it has something to do with PERJURY on the part of a former Chief Executive.

2. Somehow, a LIE, if Bush lied, is something horrific only if it appears in THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS. I would like to know what makes that speech any more immune from politicians lying, exaggerating, or fudging. I watched some cluck on MSNBC constantly making the distinction of the STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS being infiltrated by either errors or lies, as if, somehow, that was against one of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, when most of these commentators think the TEN COMMANDMENTS are optional.

This attempt to elevate the STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS to some kind of "Holy Grail" is so contrived that is has to be some kind of political spin. Let these people show that ALL OTHER STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESSES have been devoid of erroneous information, lies, exaggerations, etc., then they can start talking about the STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS being something of an INFALLIBLE SPEECH, not unlike the Pope's pronouncements on faith and morals to Roman Catholics.

[optimistically_conservative]

1) There was no fault by anyone, and this entire charge is ridiculous.

Actually, it's worse than ridiculous. The people making this charge are doing it despite the facts:

1. the statement, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." was and remains the truth.

2. there is absolutely no evidence that Bush made this statement knowing it was false.

3. there is no evidence that his motivation for including this statement was predicated on deceiving the American public into a war.

4. the case for war against Iraq stands undiminished with this statement removed from the SotU and follow-on speeches (i.e. AEI).

So it is not just ridiculous, it is scandalous, intentionly so, and hypocritical since to make the charge the accuser must lie and use innuendo.

Other than that, the "Bush lied" and "He knew" crowd seems quite disingenuous.